Apparently there are still a few public officials who will honor the Constitution left in the House of Representatives. Many of these representatives recognized the threat to the second amendment inherent in the UN Small Arms Treaty. This treaty, which the president has indicated he would sign, bypassing congress and ratification by the states, is intended to be handed back over to the Secretary of State to implement by agency decree and imposed upon the states.

While being sold to the public as simply a guideline for limiting the sales of small arms to the same countries we are many times waging war with, the treaty would severely affect the sale and ownership of small arms i.e., private gun ownership, here in the states. The obvious end goal included in many other global goals, is the disarmament of US gun owners.

The UN Small Arms treaty is nothing more than the effort to end all gun ownership anywhere in the world, except those weapons used by the military forces around the globe. With the UN attempting to gift itself the right to construct its own military with an eye on becoming the only military force on the planet, our right to keep and bear arms is more important than ever.

“In what has to be the epitome of duplicity, Hillary Clinton is now conspiring with UN officials to begin the disarmament of the citizens of the US via this pseudo-treaty. Its all for world peace, right? Obviously not, as Clinton gave an excited speech in May 2012, to the Special Operations Forces Industry Conference describing the new six-point global plan for war intended to encompass numerous countries and her obvious desire for her department to be part and parcel of the newly emerging “global wars everywhere” plan. Clinton’s obvious disregard or refusal to acknowledge the deaths of children resulting from these wars is clearly an indication that the woman is lying about her desire for world peace. But I think we already knew that.”

Please contact your representatives and encourage them to support H.Res. 814. It may well be just another half-hearted effort to make you think they are actually opposed to this treaty, but it will give you a chance to voice your objections directly to your representative. FIND YOUR REPRESENTATIVE

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, or to any similar agreement on the arms trade.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

November 16, 2012

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, or to any similar agreement on the arms trade.

Whereas in October 2009, the United States voted in the United Nations General Assembly to participate in the negotiation of the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty;

Whereas in July 2012, the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty convened to negotiate the text of the Arms Trade Treaty;

Whereas in November 2012, the First Committee of the United Nations General Assembly voted to hold a final negotiating conference on the Arms Trade Treaty in March 2013, on the basis of the text of July 2012;

Whereas the Arms Trade Treaty poses significant risks to the national security, foreign policy, and economic interests of the United States as well as to the constitutional rights of United States citizens and United States sovereignty; (emphasis added)

Whereas the Arms Trade Treaty fails to expressly recognize the fundamental, individual right to keep and to bear arms and the individual right of personal self-defense, as well as the legitimacy of hunting, sports shooting, and other lawful activities pertaining to the private ownership of firearms and related materials, and thus risks infringing on freedoms protected by the Second Amendment; (emphasis added)

Whereas the Arms Trade Treaty places free democracies and totalitarian regimes on a basis of equality, recognizing their equal right to transfer arms, and is thereby dangerous to the security of the United States;

Whereas the Arms Trade Treaty’s model for using these criteria is incompatible with the decision making model for arms transfers employed by the United States under Presidential Decision Directive 34, which dates from 1995;

Whereas the Arms Trade Treaty will create opportunities to engage in `lawfare’ against the United States via the misuse of the treaty’s criteria in foreign tribunals and international fora;

Whereas the Arms Trade Treaty could hinder the United States from fulfilling its strategic, legal, and moral commitments to provide arms to allies such as the Republic of China (Taiwan) and the State of Israel;

Whereas the creation of an international secretariat to administer and assist in the implementation of the Arms Trade Treaty risks the delegation of authority to a bureaucracy that is not accountable to the people of the United States;

Whereas the Arms Trade Treaty urges the provision of capacity building assistance from signatory nations to implement the Arms Trade Treaty, which could create a source of permanent funding to a new international organization that would be susceptible to waste, fraud, and abuse;

Whereas the Arms Trade Treaty risks imposing costly regulatory burdens on United States businesses, for example, by creating onerous reporting requirements that could damage the domestic defense manufacturing base and related firms;

Whereas an Arms Trade Treaty that has not been signed by the President and received the advice and consent of the Senate should not bind the United States in any respect as customary international law, jus cogens, or any other principle of international law that bypasses the treaty power in article II, section 2, clause 2 of the Constitution; (emphasis added)

Whereas an Arms Trade Treaty that has merely been signed by the President but has not received the advice and consent of the Senate should not bind the United States in any respect, including any obligation to refrain from defeating the object and purpose of the Arms Trade Treaty, under any provision of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, to which the United States is not a party;

Whereas an Arms Trade Treaty that has merely been signed by the President but has not received the advice and consent of the Senate should not bind the United States in any respect, as an international agreement other than a treaty, as a sole executive agreement, or in any other way; and

Whereas an Arms Trade Treaty that has been signed by the President and has received the advice and consent of the Senate, is a non-self-executing treaty that has no domestic legal effect within the United States, unless and until it has been adopted by the enactment of implementing legislation by the Congress: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that–

(1) the President should not sign the Arms Trade Treaty, and that, if he transmits the treaty with his signature to the Senate, the Senate should not ratify the Arms Trade Treaty; and

(2) until the Arms Trade Treaty has been signed by the President, received the advice and consent of the Senate, and has been the subject of implementing legislation by the Congress, no Federal funds should be appropriated or authorized to implement the Arms Trade Treaty, or any similar agreement, or to conduct activities relevant to the Arms Trade Treaty, or any similar agreement.

Related

I am equally as sure that “Ming” never accessed one link in this article….and did not bother to read the legislation.

what part didn’t you like Ming? The part where Clinton was bragging about the six-point plan for global war or the part where she was negotiating with the UN and the pres to by-pass the process? Maybe it was the defense contractors meeting where she was hyping them up to get more involved in the war process and military defense contracts.

Read the damn treaty Ming…….they are only fine tuning it now. Obama has already indicated that he believes he has the power to by pass congress just like Panetta And Dempsey claimed they can bypass congress and suck up to the UN to start more wars.

Then by all means……..please contact all 78 co-sponsors of this bill and let them know they are alarmed over nothing.

Before the election, in July, Obama indicated that if Clinton signed on behalf of the US he would also sign and then ship it to the SoS department to implement. it most assuredly does affect gun rights in the US right down to micro-managing production and sale of ammunitions and gun parts.

Clinton is back at the UN post election….just as we said would happen……to finalize the treaty. You need to do more research and avail yourself of actual UN drafts and docs before coming on here claiming this isn’t true.

I’m pretty sure you are full of BS

MingNov 26, 2012 @ 00:50:34

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has not signed, nor has the U.S. Congress ratified, a United Nations (U.N.) arms treaty. In fact, the content of such a treaty hasn’t even been finalized yet. A first draft of the Arms Trade Treaty was created at a U.N. conference in July 2012, but action on the treaty was indefinitely suspended after the United States (among other countries) declined to support a vote on the current text and asked for more time to consider the issue. The U.N. has since approved a resolution calling for a new round of talks on the treaty in March 2013, a move which the Obama administration has supported.

The Arms Trade Treaty has nothing to do with restricting the legal sale or ownership of guns within the United States. The aim of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is to combat the illicit international trade of arms by “tightening regulation of, and setting international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons” in order to “close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.” The text of the proposed treaty specifically “reaffirms the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems,” so even if such a treaty came to pass, U.S. rights and laws regarding the sale and ownership of small arms would still apply within the United States.

No such treaty could “bypass the normal legislative process in Congress,” as all treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory must first be approved by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate before they are considered to be ratified and binding.

The President of the United States cannot enact a “complete ban on all weapons for US citizens through the signing of international treaties with foreign nations.” The right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and in the 1957 case Reid v. Covert, the U.S. Supreme Court established that the Constitution supersedes international treaties ratified by the U.S. Senate.

There is no “legal way around the 2nd Amendment” other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied.

MingNov 26, 2012 @ 00:42:13

I’m pretty sure this article contains no truth whatsoever!

DaveNov 25, 2012 @ 23:22:38

I’m through “contacting my representatives”.
I’m through “calling my congressman”.
I’m through hoping the scum in DC will abide by the oaths they kept regarding the constitution.
I’m through begging for what I already have guaranteed by law.
We all must realize that our rights will remain only if we keep them & stop relying on others to keep them for us.

Jarhead1Nov 25, 2012 @ 20:00:21

Instead of commenting and complaining about this issue everyone MUST contact their respective Congressional Representative and their U.S. Senator regarding this issue, that is if you wish to remain a relatively free society. Remember WE the People put them in office and WE the People can remove them from office just as easily.
Semper Fi

‘When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.’ Thomas Jefferson